Oh, a related story that I tell: there is a graph in the Jurassic Park book that is completely LOL for anyone who has made a histogram from real data. Crichton liked to pretend he knew science, but actually doing it makes a difference.

A short science lesson. The histogram of murders vs year in Springfield is indistinguishable from random noise. Any interpretation of this data is the equivalent of seeing a dog in the clouds. For comparison, the graphs I show below are based on a random-number generator.

There is no hope for humanity.

Schrödinger's cat RPMD for tunneling through a 0.2 kcal/mol barrier at 10 K, forming the anti-Markovnikov product from BH3 + propene. The part that freaks me is how long tunneling takes, literally hundreds of fs with the H spread out on both sides of the barrier.

It would take 10 TAs and a classroom with tables that automatically groups people.

Those are indeed words there, but if “natural” includes everything humans do, despite its #1 dictionary definition, then the word has no meaning at all. But I suppose Humpty Dumpty apply:

You should verify my math and attempt to pick holes in it. But I love the word "useful." For thermodynamics, an activity of 1 for pure water making its pKa 14 is most useful. But here is a different question. For dilute MeOH (pKa 15.5) and dilute 18OH2 in water, which is true?

Ok, just for fun, let's depart into la-la land and choose a different equation that would make the pKa of dilute 18OH2 be 14 instead of 15.7. This equation would work:

Since it has been asked about, I thought I should expand slightly on an "assumption" here. I don't see this as an assumption at all - I am just counting - but you might say that I am assuming this:

Start here, a problem I give to grad students.

I demand at least a week of press stories about how conservatives are coming for your dog. Sure, it starts will leash laws, but it’s a slippery slope, and here, you can see, Matt is showing the next big step in their radical agenda. Soon, our friends will be gone forever.

I don’t think the author, or most PIs, understand this. The cause is subtle, and it leads to a lot of wasted effort from PIs. It is also why the rebuttal system proposed by the author mostly wouldn’t work.

Please please please don’t do this. Yea sure it is bad science, but we say lots of things that are wrong. The important thing is that it is god-awful teaching.

Still nonsense, but 1000% better than the typical explanation of homeopathic medicine.

I have been talking with ChapGPT about organic chemistry. No, it never gets anything right, it is gibberish, but very good gibberish. Pretty sure I have seen worse YouTube videos. Scary, if it turns in all of its work it might get a C in my class.